Serpente di Cenere: chi me lo spiega?

[Jiituomas]

Moreno, it is now obvious to me that you have completely missed both the adaptability of the character and the point of the game. Because strangely enough, many people in various countries have somehow managed to make that character their very own, and have had no problem with making the game run very differently from one run to the next.

As I have said before, the problem is that you have a very limited concept yourself on where a character should offer freedoms, and where you can add more yourself. And that is not an issue of debate, but an issue of your prejudices against certain types of design. You somehow manage to take a very, very open script and consider it limiting in a manner you are not comfortable with, then call that a general fault, and blame people for defending it.

And thus you are indeed moving towards the "murk" approach, just from a different direction. If the design has one problem - and this one it certainly does  - is that it does not work at all for people who have such a narrow vision of "playable larp" as yourself. This also happened, for example, at a run in Scotland to some extent. And my view, based on actual field data (Serpente, for example, has now been run at least 17 times, in at least 10 countries - as some people may have not told me of running it) instead of just a personal opinion like yours, is that most of the people who have a strongly negative reaction to it are people who want a communicated narrative vision - but on their own terms, and do not see adaptability even when it stares them in the face, because the game's nuances are too subtle for them.

As I will not want this to develop into me defending the design, Moreno insulting it (as he most certainly will, if the last post is any indicator), I suggest people take a look at it themselves. The communication gap is obvious enough. For me, the numbers say that the problems is at the other end, not in me constructing straw men to cover the "design fault" that some players simply can't adapt to different styles of play.

[Rafu]

[cite]Autore: Moreno Roncucci[/cite]Let's quote from my character sheet

Moreno, ricorda che la discussione era iniziata da chi il gioco non l'ha ancora giocato. Magari metti uno "spoiler alert" di qualche genere. ^_^;;

[Niccolò]

hi jituomas

we shared a grappa in ambercon, and you may remember me playing the creepy major in the pleasantville/matrix live
how are you?

i'm here to try to clear the waters

i don't think moreno is calling serpente di cenere a WRONG game, he's just explaining why it doesn't suit his tastes. in a very strong and assertive manner, but that's just his persona.
i can see both your and his points of view. from what i've gathered, serpente di cenere is probably best suited in a nordic environment than in italy, where character immersion is a better developed goal both in terms of play techniques and in terms of player expectation. without that kind of environment (i.e. playing with nordic, larp-enthusiastic players, used to look for their own enjoyement of the game) and that kind of culture and skill (i.e. a shared curpus of techniques and signals for looking for your onw enjoyement) a larp could end up a lot shallowier than expected.
"you are not good enough to enjoy this live" is a perfectly valid answer, nontheless it feels a little cheap.
a solution could be: integrate some example of these techs, of these approaches, in the game text. as examples or even as a part of the game. the good rejection of serpente di cenere you reported is in no way under attack, but at the same time is no defense against the kind of crtiques/suggestion moreno is writing. hell, there is really nothing to defend against

(sorry for my eng!)

[Niccolò]

Moreno, ricorda che la discussione era iniziata da chi il gioco non l'ha ancora giocato. Magari metti uno "spoiler alert" di qualche genere. ^_^;;

ho saltato!

[Mauro]

[cite]Autore: Jiituomas[/cite]my view, based on actual field data (Serpente, for example, has now been run at least 17 times, in at least 10 countries - as some people may have not told me of running it) instead of just a personal opinion like yours, is that most of the people who have a strongly negative reaction to it are people who want a communicated narrative vision -but on their own terms, and do not see adaptability even when it stares them in the face, because the game's nuances are too subtle for them

Where do you see such adaptability? People who managed to make their own version of characters did it by changin what was written, or in which way? I don't mean these questions as a blast, I underline this, but I think it would be more clear if you'd outline where, differently from Moreno's point of view, you see the adaptability you spoke about.
Also, I've not clear what do yuo mean with "the people who have a strongly negative reaction to it are people who want a communicated narrative vision -but on their own terms"; I've it not clear because, as far as I understood it, Moreno doesn't want any narrative vision; on the contrary, he wants the possibility to give to the game, or to the character, his own narrative vision. I mean: the game can have a premise, a narrative direction (such as Dogs in the Vineyard: characters are young people bringing God's judgment), but the character should be personalizable by the player, at least something about it should be undefined, at most only vaguely outlined.
I don't mean all games must be that way, I only think Moreno was saying that; and, if I'm right, I've not clear what do you mean in the previous quote.

Edit: If I misunderstood Moreno's view, please let me know and ignore this message.

[Rafu]

@Jiituomas:

While I firmly disagree with Moreno about the merits and faults of Serpente di Cenere, I too am baffled (and not a little puzzled) by your conflating "narrativist bent" or "very strong narrativist tendencies" with "a strong GM vision". Would you care to elaborate a little more?

EDIT: crossposted with everybody & their little sister, and now it all looks like a dogpile. Sorry. The question stands, though.

[Jiituomas]

Quick points (before I must sleep):

-Domon, the great majority of the most positive feedback has come from places as diverse as Israel, Germany, New Zealand and Italy, not so much from Nordic larpers (although some from here, too). I think that says a lot.

-Mauro: the adaptability is for example in seeing that the game has way more to do about the way people talk about the past, and the influence of that past, than about what has actually happened. The story is very much about the now, and not "pre-written" like Morenao claims. And I therefore consider this to be very narrativist critique, i.e. seeing the "big story" of the past (the cult as it was, and its end) as somehow chaining the "little story" (the point of the game) of people having come through that "big story" and then being for a short while forced to hear very differing opinions on what actually took place.

Most people have seen Serpente as a very open game, especially narrative-wise, but those critics have often seen it as lacking a GM-presented way of making the narrative in it work, and instead see it as either "just talking, not a game" (as in Scotland) or "lacking playability, as it's too restricted" (like Moreno). But those critiques too come, in my opinion, from missing the whole point of the game - the subtleties of interacting with people who do not share your view of what you think is true.

I could "fix" the game for players like Moreno, but that would kill many potential narratives for the sake of just a couple very emphasized ones - or a general chance at creating anything from silence to pandemonium. To write the roles more open would be to kill the core of the interaction.

[Moreno Roncucci]

[cite]Autore: Jiituomas[/cite]the subtleties of interacting with people who do not share your view of what you think is true.

The problem is that every one one of these views is written on the character sheets. Even the tone of voice to use to express these views is written on the character sheets. How this is not "acting a pre-written part"?

If I could, I would have asked "can my character change point of view during the game? Can I change my mind and agree with another character's view? Or we have to represent, again and again, round and round, always the same point of view for the entire game?". I think this is a basic question to ask in these games, and Serpente di Cenere did not had an answer. Murky Design. You can debate if murky design is a bad thing or, in your view, a good thing, but it's exactly this: playing without knowing the rules.

By the way, the answer each player assumed to that question had nothing to do with his or her game preferences. I love changing characters during play but I didn't because I thought that all that text about how it was to be portraited meant that it was an important aspect of the game. Most of the other players did the same.

[Mauro]

I think the first thing to do is to separate two different subjects:

- bad design/murk;
- "caged" characters.

The first is related to the uncertainty some people had by reading the rules: they don't know what they could do, which the aim of the game was (elaborate on my own belief, or search a common point, or either or both of them, or something other?); I think, If I'd understood well, this is really a problem in the design, because I think the system/game should be clear from the handbook (here in the forum we had a rather interesting discussion about "What Vampire is about?": no one gave the same reply, and no one gave the reply the author gives in the handbook). If I don't know such a thing, chances are that I spend the time asking "What can I do?", instead than playing what I can do.
This doesn't mean the game is necessary a bad game, it means that maybe the handbook needs some improvement; for example, maybe a paragraph like "Can I change my character's mind during the game?".
The second is more related with players' preferences: someone could like deeply defined character, others my dislike them; but, given it is a reasoned thing, it matter of design choices.
But, about this second subject, I'm wondering: is every possible "leakage" of the character so disruptive? For example, don't saying anything about the way of speaking, or about what one thinks about let's say sex, would create problems? I've only read the game, so I can't evaluate this from real play.

[Renato Ramonda]

To (maybe) clarify the 'murk' problem: what a player can or cannot do needs very much to be clarified before playing. Either in the manual, in handouts or in a quick pre-game talk by the GM (facilitator, or whatever).

Tuomas seems to have pretty much confirmed it, in my view, when said that Moreno was "self imposing" limits. There is a huge problem of what's left implicit here. And it's left implicit because, well, it's very obvious to Tuomas, probably. But it's not for other people, clearly.

To me (I have ZERO experience in larping or live events at all) for example many questions would remain open:
[ulist]

• Can I add to (or change) my character's background? Can I insert NPCs that are offsite (just by talking about them)?
• Can I bend the implied setting? How much? What if I start talking about "how wrong was that time we sacrificed a poor cat (or goat, kid, elf, alien)"?
• Can I "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." offers from other players and add to their character background? if not, why? If yes, how much?
  
• ...and the list goes on. I could probably write another dozen just by making the effort of thinking about possible interactions.
[/ulist]

All these questions probably have very simple, direct and non ambiguous answers, but Moreno's reaction tells me they were not communicated to him at all.
Please note: I don't see pretty much any of these questions as requiring the presence of a GM at all, much less one with some "narrative vision/direction".

Disclaimer: I've not played the game and don't have stakes in this discussion, I'm just trying to help resolve some "lost in translation" moments.

[Andrea Castellani]

[cite]Autore: Domon[/cite]non lo so, ma mi ricordo da vecchie discussioni che questo era stato individuato come lo scopo del live. però non lo diceva l'autore. lo diceva andrea castellani, credo. o mattia somenzi. boh.

Non è mai una buona cosa mettere in bocca qualcosa a qualcuno senza verificare le fonti.
Non so se tu abbia parlato con me o con Mattia, ma se hai parlato con me probabilmente ti ho detto cose che ho letto in diversi articoli di Jiituomas, soprattutto in Testing larp theories and methods: Results for year three, di cui peraltro consiglio la lettura se si vuole parlare degli scopi per cui è stato scritto lo scenario di Serpente di cenere.

[Moreno Roncucci]

[cite]Autore: Andrea Castellani[/cite]Non so se tu abbia parlato con me o con Mattia, ma se hai parlato con me probabilmente ti ho detto cose che ho letto in diversi articoli di Jiituomas, soprattutto inTesting larp theories and methods: Results for year three, di cui peraltro consiglio la lettura se si vuole parlare degli scopi per cui è stato scritto lo scenario diSerpente di cenere.

Andrea, leggendo quell'articolo, salta agli occhi questo:

"The game participants were given full authority to direct the course of the 90-minute game, to decide the inner worlds of their characters and to influence everyone else. Resolution systems were, for the sake of convenience, defined in advance. It is important to note that the liberties given to the players were much wider than similar ones in “more common” larps."

Io non ricordo nulla di tutto questo. Ti ricordi di averci detto questo prima di giocarlo?

E non manca solo nella mia memoria: non c'è traccia di questo nel pdf dello scenario...

[Andrea Castellani]

[cite]Autore: Moreno Roncucci[/cite]But Andrea is a firm believer in the "You play, I go to the Bar" Game mastering method and did leave us alone to play...

Actually I'm a firm believer in the idea that every larp should use its own method. Carsten Andreasen's Di tutti i mondi scenario, which someone has cited, suggests the "You play, I go to the bar" method (if you want to call it that way), thus when running it I use that method (even though I've found it a bit inadequate at times - but my priority was to experiment precisely that "extreme masterless" method, so to get a clear idea of its advantages and disadvantages). My own Storia di terra e d'acqua scenario recommends a jeepform-like method (even though it's actually more similar to what I could call the Albini-Bellinzona method, as I didn't have any clue about jeepform at the time), thus when running it I use that method. My own Karstic Style larps imply the strict use of a completely different method where the organiser, during pre-larp preparation, interacts heavily with the participants (who also interact deeply between each other, so to build a common understanding of the larp), but he doesn't interact at all during the larp proper (in order to not break the secondary reality illusion) - thus when running those larps of mine I obviously use that method. It is also noticeable that I sometimes run slightly different versions of the same scenario, each of which requires a different method (as it is for Români: Un'altra vita, da capo, which I have run as a Karstic Style larp but also as a rather traditional convention larp where the organiser interacts with the participants also during the larp proper). Something that I do NOT do, however, is using always the same method for every larp, because, you know, despite what someone thinks, larps are very, very different from each other. :-)
In the case of Serpente di cenere I have understood, both from the scenario and from Jiituomas's behaviour when I saw him running it, that the organiser is expected to have a word with the participants before the larp - so to clarify doubtful things - and should privately answer to questions during the larp proper, and I always did that. I was experimenting with Jiituomas's idea of emergent play at the time, and I still believe, basing my assumptions on post-larp evaluations from tens of larpers with, I assure you, very different backgrounds, that this method fits the concept quite nicely.

[Andrea Castellani]

[cite]Autore: Moreno Roncucci[/cite][p]Andrea, leggendo quell'articolo, salta agli occhi questo:[/p][p]"The game participantswere given full authority to direct the course of the 90-minute game, to decide the inner worlds of their characters and to influence everyone else. Resolution systems were, for the sake of convenience, defined in advance. It is important to note that the liberties given to the players were much wider than similar ones in “more common” larps."[/p][p]Io non ricordo nulla di tutto questo. Ti ricordi di averci detto questo prima di giocarlo?[/p][p]E non manca solo nella mia memoria: non c'è traccia di questo nel pdf dello scenario...[/p]

Non ve l'ho detto perché non c'è nello scenario, e non c'è nello scenario perché la libertà sta proprio nel fatto che ai partecipanti non viene detto niente in anticipo su come il live dovrebbe essere interpretato (con l'eccezione del sistema FreeComm per gestire sesso, violenza ed eventuali chiarimenti off-game a live iniziato, come rileva giustamente Jiituomas nel brano da te citato). In questo modo ogni partecipante interpreta il live nella maniera a sé più congeniale (che sia per scelta ragionata, per caso, per passione, per natura o per indottrinamento ideologico), con l'eccezione di poche persone a cui evidentemente non pare vero di poter godere di tutta questa libertà... ;-)

[Renato Ramonda]

[cite]Autore: Andrea Castellani[/cite]con l'eccezione di poche persone a cui evidentemente non pare vero di poter godere di tutta questa libertà... ;-)

Capisco la battuta, ma (da esterno alla cosa) mi pare un'invito (seppure involontario) agli input disruptive. Se uno dei giocatori decidesse di introdurre (per dire una cosa volutamente esasperata) gli alieni? Sarebbe ancora "gioco funzionante" dal punto di vista di chi questi giochi invece li conosce/gioca/scrive?